User talk:Kjkolb/Archive3

Thanks
Thank you for reverting my page. Wish I could have them blocked. Dev920 21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I didn't block or even warn because it was an AOL IP address, which are usually constantly changing and shared by multiple users. -- Kjkolb 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the explanation about the reversion on my talk page. Rick Norwood 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- Kjkolb 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Border Guard (disambiguation)
I've closed that as delete, mentioning your suggested moves. I've done the first one (moving Border Guard to Border guard (more in line with MoS). However, on reflection I'm not sure creating a disambiguation page at Border Guard is a good idea, as it could get confusing having two different pages with the same name just one letter capitalised differently. It might be a good idea simple to list the specific border guard articles under a 'see also' section on Border guard. Anyway that doesn't need AFD to decide, I was just wondering what you though of that (and possibly even willing to do the work ;) ) as you commented on the AFD. Cheers, Petros471 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the bounds of CSD A8
I have no intention of proposing a change in A8, and will be more careful in assessing which sources are "commercial content providers" in future. Kimchi.sg 14:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
I hope it didn't rub you the wrong way. I still forget to sign my name sometimes. I'd like to ask you a question about the AfD. Why is it that nobody uses the Disussion pages for comments? Just curious and I don't mean anything by that. Thanks! :) Ste4k 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

Opps
Thanks for that. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 04:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) -- Kjkolb 10:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Satchel Cohen hoaxer communication
FYI, I've received this and have replied on Anchor434's talk page. Tyrenius 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Erik Rhodes move request
no consensus. I screwed up and thought that the consensus was to move. I was probably thinking about the last move or something. I'm sorry for the confusion. However, I did move Erik Rhodes (disambiguation) to Erik Rhodes. With the failure of this move request, it does not make sense for Erik Rhodes to redirect here, because in that case the article might as well be at Erik Rhodes. I would have argued for the article to be moved, and for a link to be put at the top of the article for the porn star because the actor appears to be far more notable, but I don't think it is enough reason to override the lack of consensus. -- Kjkolb 10:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Erik Rhodes (actor) → Erik Rhodes … Rationale: for a second person of the same name all that was needed was a link at the top of the page, there is only one link to the porn star and 18 links to the original page for the actor who is by far more notable … Please share your opinion at Talk:Erik Rhodes (actor). —Doc 17:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not list this correctly, but the move request was exactly what you stated above and the redirect to Erik Rhodes (actor) was just a workaround to prevent a temporary change of all of the links until we had a decision, which I accept.

My concern now is that to User:SneakyTodd it appears that he was correct to begin with. He created the new article for Erik Rhodes (porn star) and moved the actor to create the disambiguation page. When I suggested that for only one other person a link at the top of the page was all that was necessary and usual form, he disagreed and insisted that his was the way it should be done and that a porn star was of equal notability with the actor. He has only edited since June 27th of this year, but is very sure of himself. Much of this dialogue took place on our user talk pages. He has only edited porn stars other than many talk page edits on capitalism. Trust me I am not going to frustrate myself by spending more time on this beyond this, but it does concern me with regard to balance here. I also question, but have been unable to get other input on the commercial links to sites selling pornography that he has placed in these articles under filmography. Perhaps I should have tried to get others to participate in the discussion. Thanks for listening. Doc 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and helpful input. Doc 01:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bait (dogs)
Pertaining to the move:

The article was orginally created at "Bait (dogs)". Later it was moved without discussion to "Baiting (sport)", which can mean different things, including "Shark-baiting" etc. This article pertains solely to the baiting of animals with dogs. Therefore, the article has been moved back to "Bait (dogs)", which is the most appropriate name for the article. See the definition at the article. Human-baiting is "Human vs. Dog" in other words the baiting of a human. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Greetings Kjkolb. Please be apprised that as of today User:SirIsaacBrock has been indefinitely blocked as an editor on Wikipedia. Please see these WP:ANI threads that explain in rather fine detail why this decision has been made. In that light it may be best to remove your commentary from his talk page for now. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 05:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it. I think he had a legitimate complaint, and I did not explain myself well, though. I had not noticed that he was blocked indefinitely of course. -- Kjkolb 05:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, Drmspeedy
Wow, that's a helpful little tag I didn't know about. Thanks! BigNate37T·C 09:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) -- Kjkolb 09:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Say, can I ask another question? I see that Wres recreated the article shortly after it was deleted (and it's been re-tagged as CSD A7). Is it possible to end up in a loop where one editor keeps recreating an article that keeps getting speedied, or does something else happen? I know that an article deleted on AFD can be speedied if its recreated, but I'm not sure about this case. BigNate37T·C 09:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article was speedied, then the previous deletion is not considered. You just check to see if it still meets the speedy deletion requirements. If the article went through AfD and is substantially similar, it can be deleted as recreated content. If a deleted article keeps getting recreated, it can be deleted and then recreated with nothing but a template that explains things and then permanently protected from editing. -- Kjkolb 09:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. That makes sense, thanks again for the info. BigNate37T·C 09:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cvio
What is the purpose of this template? Is it redundant with Template:Copyvio? Should it be deleted? —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation template
Hello, SilkTork. I noticed that you put a copyright violation notice on Talk:Channel 4 - The 100 Greatest albums. The copyright violation template should go on the article page instead of the talk page. Also, the article should be blanked first. Thanks, Kjkolb 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for letting me know. I'll make the adjustment. SilkTork 09:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects
You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Jagiełło/Jogaila minefield
The move is very controversial, see my arguments at Talk:Jogaila. I would recommend you revert your move and start a formal WP:RM to see if there is a consensus to rename this article to Jogaila. Please note that the current name has survived several previous proper (1 on 1) RMs, and the current many on many vote was not a proper RM.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I didn't even think you'd object to a move like this. But you've got no good arguments. If a page can't get moved away from such an unpopular name to a name that wins by a 60% margin, then there's no point having this process on wikipedia. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not say that Jogaila received only 1/3 of the votes? Multi-choice polls are good for determining candidates for a proper RM, but they should not be substituted for a 1 on 1 RM.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Peter, it received 16 out of 33 votes, one away from a majority. 'not eleven, 16 votes. You may be confusing it with the less popular Władysław II Jagiełło, which did receive less than a third of votes. Now that I've sorted out your confusion, I can take it you won't be wanting the move reversed then? Or am I being naive? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of the RM procedure is to make sure that the move is accepted by the community, as evidenced by the majority of interested Wikipedians supporting the move. The point is not to have the renaming option with the largest number of supporters win.  The RM procedure exists for good reasons.  Please implement it correctly in this case. Balcer 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This can of worms has now hit WP:ANI... Your comment would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Further update: we have a move war now. I really think you should comment on the situation, retracting your move would be the move I would recommend, if you excuse my pun :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I bet you'd recommend that. Why don't you recommend he give you $10,000 too. Seriously though, we don't have a move war. We had a rogue move by User:Balcer for which he has now apologized. I suggest, Piotrus, you follow his example and apologize too for trying to legitimize it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, don't twist my words. I have carefully explained that I do not consider my action a "rogue move".  I have merely apologized to people who found my action offensive, despite my good intentions.  However, I do not believe my action was wrong, as I did not violate any Wikipedia policies.  If I have, could someone finally point out to me what they were?  Balcer 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That is disappointing. I hope you will think it over. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kjkolb, thank you for making what looks like a good faith effort to at least temporarily resolve a very controversial situation. :) I agree with you that we should probably let things sit for a month or so, and then re-visit.  In the meantime, could I ask you to please review some other pending page moves as well?  The top one has a similar controversial poll, but I trust you to make a fair decision. The others are relatively unobstructed, but it would be nice to get them resolved and "off the books":


 * Move of Boleslav I of Poland to Boleslaw I of Poland
 * Move of Lower Silesian Voivodship to Lower Silesian Voivodeship
 * Move of Masovia Voivodeship to Masovian Voivodeship

Thanks for your time and effort, Elonka 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved the first one, but the others had already been moved. The move notices had not been removed and the pollls had not been closed, though. I took care of that. Thanks, Kjkolb 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's good to have those finally all prim and proper.  :) --Elonka 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Voivodship / Voivodeship
Hiya, just to help clear up any confusion, I wanted to bring you up to speed on the current status about the Voivodeship naming discussions and consensus, since it appears that you had some questions on whether or not some of the moves had been discussed or not.

The issue of the spelling of the word "Voivod(e)ship" basically breaks down by nationality of article that is being discussed. The two primary participants in the discussion, at least on Wikipedia, are Serbia and Poland, though other nationalities have also used the term in historical contexts.

In terms of the Polish regions, the issue was debated for months on various pages, and then all collected at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, with opinions also solicited from various other places around Wikipedia (see multiple notices at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (places)). After many months of heated discussion, the clear consensus was that as far as Poland-related articles go, the consensus was to use the "Voivodeship" spelling. As such, we've been implementing the changes in the many dozens of Poland-related articles around Wikipedia, to make everything consistent.

Where a wrench got thrown in, was when there was an attempt to rename the article "Voivodship" to "Voivodeship". One of the Serbian editors strongly opposed the move, so, since that's not a strictly Poland-related matter, there's a separate discussion going on, at Talk:Voivodship, about whether or not it should be renamed. But the outcome of that particular discussion, shouldn't have any effect on the naming of the Poland-specific articles. There have been proper debates and polls, such as a discussion to rename Category:Voivodships of Poland to Category:Voivodeships of Poland (which was approved), and I've been working with Admin RobertG on getting those squared away (see User_talk:RobertG).

The two moves that I asked you to do, were not "outside of consensus" moves, but simply two RMs that had been pending awhile, with no opposition. And to my knowledge, with the exception of the multi-country "Voivodship" article, no one has objected to any of the many dozens of other Poland-related "Voivodeship" moves, either.

In other words, I don't think it's necessary to have another "umbrella" discussion on whether it's appropriate to be moving the Voivodeship articles, since it's already been covered in multiple venues. Though I will agree that the Voivodship article is a special case, which requires special handling and discussion, so as to be sensitive to the opinions of the multiple nationalities involved.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope this helps clarify the current status. If you have any questions, let me know!

--Elonka 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for move, and req for talk:Solaris Operating System
Hi, Thanks for performing the Solaris move! One request, tho: the discussion box encompasses one comment that wasn't part of the move discussion. Could you edit (or alternatively, can I edit without breaking the rules) the bottom of the box so that the last comment is the "Maybe..." comment by Frap? Both the following separating line and unsigned comment that begins with "this user says..." were added before the move request. --NapoliRoma 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy
Just a note to let you know the article has been completely rewritten in the time since you voted on AfD. dryguy 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Hawkins
Since you added the notable Wikipedian tag to this talk page, over which addition some discussion ensued, you may be interested in this discussion at WP:VPP. Joe 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questionable revert
Hi, could you please explain why you reverted the rechargeable battery article? To me, it didn't look like vandalism at all, more a legitimate edit that made a small mistake as one of many contructive edits. You should have just got rid of that one part if you didn't like it, not the whole thing - Jack (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say that it was vandalism. The edit summary was, "Revert to second to last version by 82.16.7.63, please explain your rationale for the content deletions in greater detail on the talk page." The removal of the zinc-air battery made some sense since it is not really a battery, although, if it is used in the same manner, perhaps a comparison is helpful while noting that it is not a battery. I'm not sure whether it should be removed or not. However, that is not why I reverted the edit. It was because of the other deletions. His or her edit summary, "Uses (zinc oxide does not belong here)" did not explain the deletions from many (or all) of the entries on the table. Since most of the content that was deleted looks fine to me, I reverted pending a rationale for the deletions. It does not have to be extensive, it just has to make at least some sense. Before going through the edit to see what to save, I was hoping that I would get a reply to avoid wasted effort because maybe there is a good reason for the deletions. -- Kjkolb 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Possible Inpersonator (TMNT Donatello)
No, sorry, that was me, I must've forgot to have it remember me...sorry for any trouble I've caused. TMNT Donatello 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)TMNT Donatello

WP:EL
I guess my point was that if the site requires registration or a subscription and isn't available as a print equivalent, it's not a suitable source and shouldn't be treated as one.

That aside, where there is a print equivalent, people should be including the cite for that.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to WP:EL on sites requiring registration or subscription, Kjkolb. I thoroughly agree with them. It's fair that where a print equivalent exists, it should also be referenced, but as academic journals move to electronic publishing only, I think we will need them more and more as reliable sources. Although not everyone can access them, enough Wikipedians will be able to do so to confirm whether they are being used fairly as references. -- JimR 11:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why did you look up my IP address on Whois? I did not vandalize Wikipedia. In fact, I am a user for not only this wiki, but the Family Guy wiki and several others. I do not feel comfortable about you doing this, at least without reason. --66.218.22.67 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ü


 * I replied on the user's talk page. The whois template was not added because of vandalism, just to provide information. Every known AOL IP is tagged with AOL regardless of vandalism and many other IPs have similar templates, like User talk:132.185.240.120, which is from the BBC. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe I know
I know the additional meanings of spade, I was just trying to point out the stupidity of sarastro777's assumption that call a spade a spade was some inherently racist statement (which is why I said "whatever connotations it has to you"). :) Syrthiss 21:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Camera (disambiguation)
Re : why "or CAMARA"? I don't see anything on the page spelled that way. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Israelisms on drv
I don't think the DRV nominator would think to drop you a note, but since I had to clean up after them... Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_25. Personally I expect another puppetfest, but there you go. :) Syrthiss 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. -- Kjkolb 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Foreign Legion needs to be moved to Spanish Legion
Sorry for the confusion. I removed the template you placed as it seems to imply the opposite? Not sure if this was a mistake. Please confirm. Regards, E    Asterion  u talking to me? 08:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I guess you meant to have Spanish Legion history moved into Spanish Foreign Legion and then having Spanish Foreign Legion moved to Spanish Legion? If that is the case, please revert my edit at Spanish Foreign Legion. E    Asterion  u talking to me? 08:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: All sorted now, thanks, E    Asterion  u talking to me? 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In case you're wondering what was going on, on July 15th someone did a copy and paste move from Spanish Legion to Spanish Foreign Legion. Changes to the article had taken place since then, so the histories had to be merged before the article could be moved. I put in a request at the Cut and paste move repair holding pen for the histories to be merged. Bobet merged the histories and then completed the move. -- Kjkolb 09:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks very much. E    Asterion  u talking to me? 09:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved it by using the cut and paste as someone at the time, whom apparently thinks that its their article, tried to lock the article. It is still called the Spanish Foreign Legion in the English speaking world, please see Jane's and Military Technology et al.--Tomtom9041 18:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma
There were two votes (arguably three) versus one for a move to Queen Anne of Romania, which is the name by which the lady in question is most known. Since there is a consensus of at least 67%, I wish you would reconsider and possibly do a quick Google search or two... The name Queen Anne of Romania is by far much more common because she is the wife of a king, much like Marie-Chantal of Greece is titled crown princess as the wife of a crown prince. Charles 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I look forward to the outcome. Charles 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick action regarding the page move. Charles 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am perplexed by the fact that you changed your decision in this matter after having urged further public neutral consultation, and then called for uninvolved administrator input, but then changed your decision strictly on the basis of solicitations from one side of voters on the issue. Relying upon your one statement on the talk page, I did not know that a move was contemplated until after it had been completed, and so did not weigh in on the discussion on the Administrators' page. The argument that the applicable Naming Convention was #10 rather than #9 is specious: Anne is the wife of a former king, who married him after the monarchy was abolished and while he was living in exile. She never legally held the title of Queen in Romania, as her husband once held that of King. Whereas Convention #10 is clearly intended to apply to wives or widows of persons who held the office of king during the marriage, such as Queen Sofia of Spain or Queen Fabiola of Belgium, who are or were Queens Consort to reigning kings, and legally remain queens today. If a crown prince dies or is dethroned before ever becoming king, his wife does not become Queen since at no time was she the wife of the reigning monarch. Moreover, the second wives of King William I of the Netherlands and of King Ferdinand II of Portugal, whom they wed after their husbands had ceased to rule and become merely titular kings, were never accorded the title of Queen. Most importantly, some Romanian republicans on WP have intensely opposed current references to the deposed Romanian king by his former title, to which neither he nor his wife are now legally entitled, and I simply felt that their input should be heard before the change went through -- consistent with your recommendation that continuing discussion was appropriate on this move. Essentially, both my vote and my voice were silenced by a "recall" vote and discussion in which I was given no opportunity to participate. Did I inadvertently do something that prompted you to refrain from indicating on the talk page that you were contemplating reversing your decision?Lethiere 08:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ferdinand II of Portugal was a king-consort who was only a king through his first wife, a queen-regnant. William I of the Netherlands abdicated on his own accord. The personal opinions of Romanian republicans has no bearing on what Anne is commonly called. She is almost always called Queen Anne of Romania. Even her article in Romanian Wikipedia is at Regina Ana. Anne is titled Queen of Romania because she married a man called King of Romania, chose to use that title and wasn't specifically prohibited from doing so and is referred to by that title by various courts and whenever she is mentioned in the press. She is Queen Anne of Romania for the same reason that Marie-Chantal is Crown Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece. They are known that way and they married men with the titles. Your vote did not constitute part of the majority and in any case, common usage trumps consensus. We can think whatever we want, but it doesn't change what Anne is called, nor do the opinions of Romanian republicans who are at best qualified to dictate usage at Romanian Wikipedia. Charles 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since few men have remained kings after ceasing to rule, and even fewer have married under that circumstance, it is relevant that not all of their wives automatically became queens -- the fact that King Michael abdicated under threat of force whereas King William abdicated under pressure does not alter that precedent, since both men wed in exile and never re-mounted their thrones. I do not object to referring to Anne as Queen -- quite the contrary, in fact. I am troubled by an effort to slip a decision in the matter past WP contributors known to have an interest in the issue, with the objective being to "win" without engaging them or their concerns rather than to work toward a consensus with them. That sets the article up for subsequent combat once they discover what has been done -- the same objection raised during the vote by Noel S McFerran, by the way. As for the argument that "common usage trumps consensus", this argument is only offered in these disputes when it conveniently supports the result desired (which is, apparently, for WP to treat royal titles used in former monarchies as if those monarchies had never been deposed). Otherwise, there will be no objection to my request here that Kjkolb enforce this "common usage trumps consensus" rule by immediately moving Caroline, Princess of Hanover and Princess Astrid, Archduchess of Austria-Este to, respectively, "Princess Caroline of Monaco" and "Princess Astrid of Belgium". Kjkolb, you will find it easy to verify that the latter are their most "common usage" titles. Just as there are editors on Wiki who believe that most royal titles should be accorded to what are now legally commoners as if their exiled dynasties still reigned, there are republicans and nationalists who believe that such titles are forfeited and obsolete upon deposition, and should be banned from WP. Until a consensus is forged to resolve this dispute, I believe that those on both sides of it should, in fairness, be consulted before inflammatory article moves are made (and just so that there is no confusion, when that fair debate happens, I will be arguing and voting in favor of use of those ex-royals' titles). I believe that this move was provocative, and moves us away from rather than toward consensus -- and the dismissive references made to those on the other side of the issue confirms that interpretation. As for my vote not being part of the majority, Consensus is clear about how such votes are to be weighed: "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate...Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision." In this case, after the vote the Admin received a complaint about his decision, solicited input on the matter from uninvolved Admins while notifying the complainant, who notified the one other voter who had sided with him, resulting in both making additional arguments to the Admin, but neither the Admin nor the complainant notified me so that I could respond to those additional arguments. The Admin, having inadvertently solicited and heeded extra arguments from one side of the debate only, has acknowledged that this was wrong and apologized to me for it, but is unwilling to correct his mistake. I have no choice but to accept that decision, but the move stands because of an unrighted unfairness, not because of a victory in substance.Lethiere 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma, I think highly of your actions to have posted a discussion on the issue and that you were able to be convinced. So thanks again. Gryffindor  17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

TPSRM
Hi Kjkolb,
 * (revert my change, this template is not what I thought it was, it is still hard to remove the stuff afterwards, though)

I agree, but unfortunately subst:ing is required to produce a signature (and maybe something else; I don't recall now). Thanks, though, for realiz/sing the situation. Best wishes, David Kernow 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me figure out how many edits I have. I want to join Esperanza (need 150 edits) and the Counter-Vandalism Taskforce (need 250 edits), so I definitely need to start editing more! :) If only the Cleanup Taskforce would give me an assignment already.....! Ellie041505 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Charing Cross railway station
I think you may have misread the votes cast for this article. The votes were opposing a move away from Charing Cross railway station, but someone else went ahead and made the move against these wishes. The RM listing was to move it back.Mrsteviec 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On the same topic, the oops page move was an informal support and oppose with general agreement being to oppose. Simply south 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i made a mistake with the page move. I hope it was okay that i moved your message to my talk page for future reference etc. Simply south 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin
If you would like to pay tribute to Steve Irwin, who tragically died on September 4th 2006, just feel free to sign your name on Mil Falcon's userpage under tributes. 49Untouchable 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina
Are you planning to restore this article once personal information has been removed? -- Longhair 07:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing was removed...I think the only solution is to delete all of the revisions from July 2 onwards, as noboody removed the birhtdate after it was icnluded on that day. Hbdragon88 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took so long. I did not record which versions had been previously deleted, so it took a little while to make sure I did not add them back. Then I tried to get rid of the versions with the birthdate, but it went back really far, and I did not want to delete all those versions without getting more input. Then, I checked for stuff that might have been previously missed, especially the link to the naked pictures that was added once or twice. It was difficult to do because of the number of versions and the lack of a "diff" function when dealing with deleted versions. Checking all of the boxes by hand took a minute or two, as well. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, I just was wondering what was going on. I also had questions on how the history would be dealt, as the additions does stretch back to two months' worth of edits. Hbdragon88 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Msian vs Msian Chinese
Hello, since you actually moved Indonesian Chinese to Chinese Indonesia, plaese see Chinese Malaysian/Malaysian Chinese. Consensus at Chinese Malaysian page might affect page Chinese Indonesian. Also, please vote on the matter at Talk:Chinese_Malaysian. You opinion is appreciated. __earth (Talk) 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Onomastic pages created by Sheynhertz-Unbayg
I see these now and see that S-U was banned. I quite understand the ban. As far as I remember, until this onomastic madness he was creating more-less standard articles (or rather stubs). Pavel Vozenilek 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll help with the cleanup (going from Z down the alphabet). Hopefully I could manage few pages each week.


 * Top level pages like Pedigree (Jewish Encyclopedia) would need some specialist. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Webb Ellis Cup
Hi Kjkolb, thanks for moving the article. My apologies that I didn't follow proceedure, I was under the impression that there was only need for discussion if it was a bold/controversial move. I though this would be okay, as WE Cup had just kind of floated around on numerous names, and no one was every really adament where it should go, so yeah. But will do it properly from now on. Thanks. Cvene64 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A8
I may just be dead wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the CCP provision is dead. I thought before you took the action you did that it meant anything from another site without specific permission to copy qualified under A8, but I checked the new criteria. It looks like the CCP provision has been replaced by a multi-part test and notification requirement. Let me know if you think I'm reading the new policy wrong because you clearly have more experience than I do at this. You are the one with the mop, after all. Erechtheus 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming that I wasn't reading things wrong. It may take some getting used to the new procedure from the warning to the creator perspective, but I would agree with you that it's a nice step in the right direction. Erechtheus 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unneccesary red tape with respect to requesting page moves
The reason I did not go through the bureaucratic motions with respect to Jean Claude Van Damme, was because I consider it to be a non-controversial move (it involves a simple typographical change which is supported by the contents of the article itself), which I would have no hesistation moving without discussion were it not for the fact that it was impossible to do so. Contrast this with the case of Mutually intelligible languages, which DID went through a discussion while there was no physical barrier for a non-admin to just move it. I'm asking for a bit of common sense here. -- Dissident (Talk) 15:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sabu
Why was this moved? There was no consenus, meaning it should have stayed. Since you felt like moving it, then either you (or a bot) will have to go and fix all the articles that link to Sabu and fix them to link to Sabu (wrestler). TJ Spyke 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Chernobyl and what level should we pitch wikipedia at
Hi, I am contacting you becuase I think we need to talk about the article about the Chernobyl disaster. I would like to know at what level should we be pitching the article. I am thinking that the object of writing the wikipedia is to provide a free of charge source of information about a series of topics to the on-line community. I am thinking that the article is to give as broad an overview of the subject as possible, I fear that if all things which can not be instantly understood by the casual reader are removed than the article will lose a great deal. I have rechecked the policy on "original research" and it states there that things which require specialist training (eg a PhD) to understand and check should not be included, but at what point do you draw the line on what is special training ?

I am keen to make the point that the ratio of the dose rate on day one to day 10000 is very dependent upon the source of the radioactivity (related to the source or release term) and that this has a great effect upon attempts to compare the chernobytl event with other radioactive events such as "lost source accidents" and "bomb fallout". What do you think about this topic ?

Also I am unsure how much an article should explain everything from first princibles. My fear is that if an article is required to start from first princibles (rather than referenceing an idea to somewhere else) that too much duplication will occur and it will get unreadable. Please coulod you give me your thought on the subject.

Lastly (this might seem like a long set of things) what do you think about the loss of DV8 2XL from the wikipedia community ? I have quickly read his essay on why he is going and I can see some of the points that he is making might be (at least in part) true.Cadmium 11:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs
We once took opposite sides in Articles for deletion/List of Famous Nairs and had a long discussion about it. You may be interested in its new AfD at Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs. Having tried for a while to keep that list sane, failed utterly, and having been abused by all and sundry for questioning the notability of people they added, I have got converted to your way of thinking ! Tintin (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian Chase
Sorry, but I think you handled that poorly. That article was about Brian Chase the drummer for most of its history, until that anon came along. Now the edit history is gone. &mdash;Chowbok 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That was just an oversight, not an intentional decision. I did not know there was anything useful in the history. It has all been restored. -- Kjkolb 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Smoke detector failure rate
Regarding your request for more information, I have a not-for-reprint PDF of the abstract in question from Colorado State University's Journal of Applied Fire Science. I can send you a copy if you agree not to re-print or otherwise redistribute it without first obtaining reprints from CSU's Department of Manufacturing Technology and Construction Management. Just send me an email message, and I will reply back with the abstract. My plain text email address can be found under section five (Contact info) of my user page. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of faux pas AfD
Howdy, you have recently voted delete in this AfD with concerns about ability to source the article with reliable sources. The article has undergone a substantial rewrite since you voiced your concerns and I would like to invite you to take a look at the new version. I now have first hand experience in just how difficult a task that really is. :) However, I do think there is some value in having such a list so I attempted to as thoroughly source with as reliable of sources that I could find. I also deleted a substantial number of cruft and sterotypes that I couldn't find any type of reliable sourcing on. (Taking the article down from 62 kilobites to 41). It's still a work in progress but I would appreciate any input on what more could be done to possibly sway you to reconsider your position. Thanks and I appreciate your time. Agne 06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help on page
I created new page about Fred Thomson and have added citations, but am not sure what to do about the images I uploaded. I don't know who owns the copyright. I cite Fair Use, but can use some help in understanding whether they are. All suggestions on making the page better will be appreciated. Sliss 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfair removal of MAD article
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days (This template was added: 25 October 2006).

So why did you remove with in 24 hours?

Please exaplain what copyright issues there where. I work for an internatiaonl company, copyright is part of my job, not one copyright law was broken or even came close to it.

Adervertising? Nope, it was information about diferent types of magic forums that are availabe, bringing one to attention and supplying a link was for reference purposes. There are many more wiki articles that do break copyright and advertise. Try searching Magic Hat or even Coke-Cola

After it was removed I tryed again with the below, under title magic forums, please can you explain why this would have been removed?

In the past, teaching of magic has been a very secretive world, but more recently publications in books and videos have made it more accessible to the general public. There are many magic clubs for people to join and learn at all levels. There are also many online forums where the art of magic can be learnt and discussed, one of which is MAD Magical Arts Domain

So this will be my final attempt, unless you can give me some advice on what is wrong with the below and how I would need to correct it. however after reading everything about what links you can and cant supply and what articles and subjects you can describe I really cant see anything wrong with it???

Learning magic
Matsimons 11:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC) In the past, teaching of magic has been a very secretive and sensitive subject, where upon magicians did not want to share their knowledge with any one out side of the magic world for fear of laymen discovering there secrets. This made it very hard for anyone to learn magic beyond a very basic level. Some magic organisations had and still have strict rules that demand members must not discuss magic secrets with any one but established magicians. As the interest in watching performing magic grew sources started to become available to learn from books, where a very useful way to learn and still have a very strong position in todays market. However due to the nature of the media video has now overtaken books. Being able to see someone perform and then reveal the method of how a trick is done makes it a much more desirable learning platform.

The next step up from videos is magic clubs or workshops, here magicians, both experienced and beginners can work together helping each other improve, and to learn new tricks, discussing all aspects of magic and performing for each other, receiving advice and criticism. Much more accessible to the general public are online forums where the art of magic can be learned and discussed in the same fashion as a magic club. But without the commitments of time keeping for meetings or travelling to venues, members can discuss magic and tricks in either open or secure areas of a forum depending on the forums policies. Images, text sound and video can also all be displayed in these online forums. An individual can decide on their own ethics on magic by choosing which type of forum they join, be it a forum that is open for anyone to view, who are happy to teach and share magic secrets with everyone including laymen, not caring what they might do with this information. Or a forum that demands registration before the forum can be viewed, and requires its members to be actively learning magic to perform and not give away secrets to non magicians, an example of the latter forum is MAD (Magical Arts Domain)

Learning magic update
Matsimons 11:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

thanx for the feed back, I have changed the article now, and realise the mistakes I made, it was not infact my intention to draw trafick to the forum. I was just trying to make people aware that its now easier to learn magic. I hope my new article Learning magic now reaches the standard neeed. I would also like to point out there is not copy right infringements at the forum, it is something we take very seriousley, and infact remove any copyrighted marterial if posted, and will ban members who do so. AS to the reference to the graphic from MAD forum, I am a graphic desinger, I was asked to create the graphic, I hold all copy rights to that image. And was given permision to use the Text.

There are several reasons we dont alow copyrighted material. Firstly its ilegal, secondly, its against proboards rules and they would shut us down if we did, thirdly we suport magicians and encourage people to create knew magic, we like them to share there secrets with us so others can learn, but we would also like them to make money form there inventions, so for this reason we would not want to take money out of any other magicians pokcet by alowing copy righted material at the forum. The link in the article now is a reference link to what types of forums might be out there. This was realy what i was attempting to do with my first articl MAD.

Im not really overly bothered about making a WIki page on the forum, however I or some one else may do in the futre.

I am new to wikipedia so I am greatfull for all the help you ahve given and advice you could give in the futre. If the current Learning magical article is ok, and im sure it is? I would like to ask you more questions on referals please.



Radio Blagon
Hi, I saw you participated in pages related to radio. I just wanted a little bit of help to correct an article I've tried to translate from French. It's about a French independent Internet radio called Radio Blagon. My english is not perfect, so I make a lot of little mistakes. If you have a bit of time to have a look at the grammar, the spelling and the general style of this article, that would be great. Thanks, Ajor 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple-page move
There seems to be a consensus to call Indigenous Australians "Indigenous Australians", as opposed to "Aboriginal Australians". The corresponding adjective would be "Indigenous Australian". I've tried moving some of the articles using the adjective "Aboriginal" but there seem to be too many of them. A list of articles that need to be moved can be found here. Is there a quick way to setup a poll to move these pages? Is a poll even necessary? (It appears a good majority would support the move.) Any help would be appreciated. Zarbat 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Radio Blagon
Thanks a lot for your help on the Radio Blagon's page. You've done a good work... Ajor 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. :-) -- Kjkolb 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WHEEL
Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors have put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 07:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Operating Theatre
For US vs Brit spelling or lexical differences, it has long been standard on Wikipedia to either consider the subject matter (e.g. an article on US Presidents in American English and one on British Monarchs in British english) or where there is no obvious allignment (as in this case) continue with the style in which the article was created and have redirects where there are different words used in different English speaking countries. What you have a fair point about is that if there is a choice of usual words in one dialect, then to use the one that is more internationally recognised. However, while "operating room" would be understood in the UK, it is less specific and could apply to a room which is being used for an operation (where it is not usually) or in a non medical context where anything is "operated" such as power plant. In the UK "Operating Theatre" is imediately understood to mean a purpose equipped permanent medical facility and is used far more widely in this context. Dainamo 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo Matching Service
Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. -- Gphoto talk  18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Can you or another admin look at WP:AIV right now? Thanks!  B e  arly  541  12:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And, delete Paul_Anthony_Watkins, Horspath, Charu_Nivedita, etc. Thanks  B e  arly  541  12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Archiving" External links Talk
You said here that you were archiving, but I'll be damned if I can find the stuff in the archives. Am I missing something? I restored one section that was related to an ongoing discussion on Forums. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

AIV report
Hello, Kizor. I did not indefinitely block the IP address that you reported to AIV. IP addresses are not blocked indefinitely, unless they are open relays. I did not give a shorter block either because I am not sure that it is the same person as the other IP address that added the link. A single edit of adding a link is not much to go on. Also, one of the IP addresses is in Atlanta, Georgia and the other is in Herndon, Virginia. The locations of IPs are not super reliable, but it is enough to make me suspect that it might be a different person. I suggest warning the new IP on his or her talk page. I would do it, but I could not check the website the person linked to as Charter Communications is having problems that cause random sites not to load, which has been really ruining my last two months. If the person continues to add inappropriate links, then the IP could be blocked. Thanks, Kjkolb 13:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your gracious help and lesson. A chance encounter with yet another spamlink resulted in the discovery that this is |slightly bigger. A subtle long-term campaign to infest our articles with spamlinks, changing IPs after almost every edit. So far I've found 32 IPs, approximately a minimium of 45 spams, most of which were at least reverted by other editors. There's no chance left that this is coincidental, neither do IP bans seem like an effective solution. What now? --Kizor 11:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move debate opinion needed
Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bridle path
Would you please expand the Bridle path article that you started? Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pattani
I have posted the reasons on the talk page. Mainly there have been concerns about those articles in Thai Wikipedia. I just would like the warn readers that the facts may not be accurate. Again there are no references what so ever on these articles. As far as I concern with the situation going on in Southern of Thailand. I am not sure if this article is trying to shed the good light on terrorists or something. Again, myself do not know enough about this to judge. --18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need 4 articles on the same subject?
Wikipedia now has these 4 articles, all on the same subject: Do we really need all of these? In my opinion, this sort of thing reflects badly on Wikipedia. What can we do to get these four articles merged?? - mbeychok 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fossil fuel power plant
 * Power station
 * Thermal power station
 * Steam-electric power plant

Re merging of power plant articles
Kjkolb, please read my response (to your comments on merging those articles) on my Talk page. Thanks for your comments. - mbeychok 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

69.238.129.55
Re Talk:Poor metal: see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lysdexia for what it's worth. Femto 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion
Kjkolb said: Hi, Bobo192. Good work on reverting the vandalism to the nuclear power article. However, before reverting an article, I recommend that you go back to make sure that the last version was not vandalized as well. In this case, two IP addresses vandalized the article and you only reverted the changes made by the last one. My system, which need not be yours, is to keep going back through the "diffs" until I find an edit by a member with a user page (a member whose name appears blue in the article history and in the diffs), because IP addresses and new users commit the vast majority of vandalism (unfortunately, not having a user page is currently the best indicator we currently have that a member is new).

The most difficult thing is indeed when two IPs, generally of IPs quite close to each other, which smack of being AOL IPs, needing reversion at the same time. I can see the problem here and it is something which normally I have a hold of as soon as I've reverted the page, if I accidentally revert it to the wrong version. Thank you for contacting me about this, though, as I must have missed it while going through my Firefox tabs.

Kjkolb said: In addition, once the article is reverted, vandalism is much more likely to go undetected for long periods of time. If the vandalism is a deletion of a sentence or a paragraph, it may never be detected after a reversion. Actually, I examined the last 50 edits of the nuclear power article yesterday and found that 20 out of 25 of the last IP address edits were vandalism. Some of the edits were from the same person or source, so I also counted the number of unique vandals and found that 10 out of the last 13 IP address editors were vandals (assuming one editor per IP address). Also, three out of the last four editors with no user page were vandals.

It's very rarely that I actually make two vandalism reversions to the same page, at more-or-less the same time - this is the first time I've really noticed that, and for that I thank the common vandalism links I look at from time to time, such as REDIRECT Link title and the like. Generally I do notice whether or not I have reverted to the right version, but sometimes I misjudge.

But I suppose the more vandalized articles are the only kind which would have this happen to them, and most of these people have on their watchlists and get to before I do, particularly those with faster tools to do it with.

This issue of reversion is made much easier by the fact that I now keep pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=10&hideliu=1 actually in my Bookmarks toolbar, along with the common links, which, believe it or not, can go for hours without being noticed - I can only assume this can also be said about at least some other vandalism. I find this the easiest place to start, but, as you say, these only cover the most recent subset, and most of the time don't include multiple users' edits.

It's been good to think about this lately, particularly as I am beginning to think more and more about ways to step up my helping the amount of vandalism that Wikipedia is inevitably suffering, but, it's good to know that it's under control. Bobo. 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Need administrator's help re User:169.244.6.107
Kjkolb: Please take a detailed look at the Contributions page of User:169.244.6.107 at Special:Contributions/169.244.6.107, especially the edits to the Natural resource article.

Almost every one of the contributions (if not all) is vandalism. Look at his/her Talk page and he/she has been repeatedly admonished for vandalism. In my opinion, a very lengthy block of that user is warranted and I fail to understand why such a block has not already been implemented. Please help. Regards, - mbeychok 17:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly the same request for help regarding vandalism by User:206.108.165.249 and his/her contributions at Special:Contributions/206.108.165.249.


 * Is there any special place to report constant vandalizers like these two without bothering you with requests for help? - mbeychok 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Question Regarding Cisco IOS Article
Hi, I've got a question regarding the Cisco IOS article: was the architecture part added by you? If you did add this part could you tell me on what basis this addition was made? I'm currently working on an study essay and I need some background info on the IOS architecture, so if you could tell me any sources this would be highly appreciated.

Thx jc_denton82 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc denton82 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

My Bot
My bot can do merge/rename there must have been an error there I have since changed methods for CFD work and those bugs should be fixed. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polishlancers garde.jpg
Hi, Doubtless you became away of this problem after reading this unsigned post from 74.101.60.43. As I was telling Husond, 74.101.60.43 belongs to User:MattKingston, an image copyright troll who never assumes good faith, and has been carrying out a persistant campaign of stalking and harassment against me and my image contributions.as you can see here and here. Instead of correcting an honest mistake, he screams copyright violation and seeks to have me banned. If I really wanted to lie about it, I would have never given Rousselot's name...I would have atrributed it to artist unknown, or to one who has definately been deceased for a century or more. I'm no longer an active member of this project, but I will not sit by and allow the likes of him to trash my reputaion here from the shadows on an IP account. I've added a more appropriate tag in light of the situation. Thanks --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cars, bicycles and shoes on Heligoland
I just read your remark on the Heligoland discussion page. It seems hard to believe, but I suggest you go there and have a good look around. You will then realize that vehicles of any kind simply do not make sense on Heligoland. But, yes, shoes are allowed. Unoffensive text or character 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions (acronyms)
Hi, I noticed you changed Naming conventions (acronyms) regarding U.S. vs. US. Where was this discussed? I know that such a change has been proposed and rejected four times in the past, so I was curious where a new discussion occurred which did not reject this change. -- Cjensen 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Who hasn't stepped on a bear-trap once in their life? Cheers! -- Cjensen 05:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr pda
It's Dr pda. Raul654 messed up the capitalization and added a period, and I forgot to check and ensure that it was a real user :) Ral315 » 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to reblock User 169.244.6.107
This IP address has made persistent vandalism edits to Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. Thank you. Netkinetic/(t/c/@) 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See also vandalism at Right to bear arms. PubliusFL 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar categorization
Yeah thanks, i think i went on a overdrive with categorization. Next time i will be more care ful with it.Suntech 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need 4 articles on the same subject?
Can you please help on this query? I am totally at a loss now due to my infirmity.

--Dore chakravarty 05:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kjkolb, perhaps I can help explain what Dore chakravarty is asking. Some months ago, I questioned whether or not we needed 4 articles on the same basic subject (Fossil fuel power plant, Power station, Thermal power plant and Steam-electric power plant). After receiving a response (on my Talk page) from you and from others, I decided it would be very difficult to try merging or deleting any of the 4 artcles ... and I abandoned any further work on that idea.


 * Then a few day ago, Dore chakravarty contacted me on my Talk page and asked what he should do ... presumably because he was the principal editor of the Thermal power plant article. We exchanged messages both on his Talk page and on mine. He also wrote me some emails to which I responded. In brief, I told him that I had abandoned the idea of merging or deleting any of the 4 articles. I also told him that, in my opinion, the crude hand-drawn diagrams that he had uploaded and used in the Thermal power plant article were far from being of the standard required of an encylopedia ... and that they needed to be completely redone using a professional drawing program of some sort. I also told him that I thought the article text need a lot of work (essentially Wikifying and better wording). He responded and more or less agreed but said that he was in no position to work on it himself.


 * Accordingly, I proceeded with these steps:


 * I replaced the three crude hand-drawn diagrams with a new single diagram obtained form Wikimedia Commons.


 * I tagged the article as needing clean-up (using two different clean-up tags). There was some response and editing by H Padleckas.


 * I added a "See also" section and an "External links" section and partially populated them.


 * I did some small amount of rewording and copy editing. I plan no further work on the article in the near future unless absolutely needed.


 * I believe his above request for help from you may stem from my having told him that his diagrams need upgrading ... or perhaps he is upset with my having proceeded to edit the article, although our exhange of message and emails was quite cordial and pleasant. Hope this updates you on the current status. Regards, - mbeychok 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need 4 articles on the same subject?
I am not at all upset with his mbeychok honest opinion given to me and which he has conveyed to you thus:-

..or perhaps he is upset with my having proceeded to edit the article, although our exchange of message and emails was quite cordial and pleasant.

About drawings I feel really ashamed of attaching such sketches. This is because of my limitations here. Mr H Padleckas has helped me on many such sketches.

I am drafting a detailed reply to him mbeychok on the two templates placed on my article, since it is worth knowing what is going on in the other parts of the world:now what India today is and what past India was. I shall also send copy to you for what it is worth.

Thank you for assisting me in my efforts.

--Dore chakravarty 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which article?
Please refer to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_station

--Dore chakravarty 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bourke
You have shown an interest in the Bourke engine in the past. This engine's page is presently undergoing peer review, it would be appreciated if you would review this page and give any comments or suggestions you may have. Bourke review page. Thank you very much for your time and help.Sno2 16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Knife switch
Hi,

You've a link to knife switch, which was red until about 5 minutes ago. I'm assuming it's 'cause you were going to create it at some point. Just created, it probably sucks, this is merely an FYI.

Thanks,

WLU 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Firm service
A "" template has been added to the article Firm service, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gavin Collins 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I am the author of the article. I removed the proposed deletion template because I disagree that the article qualifies as "POV", which was the reason given on the template. Sorry for the delay in posting this. The database was locked just after I removed the template, so I was prevented from saving the page. It would help if the objection to the article were stated more clearly so that I could address it. The only major problem that I am aware of is a lack of references. While I did do some research in writing the article, the works would not have made wonderful references, as they were electric and gas utility websites for the most part. The article is also based on my knowledge of the field after years of research. Unfortunately, Britannica has yet to cover the subject and it is not exactly a prime topic for newspapers and magazines, although it is mentioned in passing in financial and industry media. Still, I will do my best to find some references. It will have to wait for a little while though, as I have projects and finals to do over the next two weeks. If I have a little spare time, I may be able to work on it, but I cannot make any promises. If you would like to get my attention, please leave a message on my talk page. It may take several days or more for me to visit Wikipedia again, though. Retrieved from Talk:Firm service. - Kjkolb 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I apppreciate that this is your area of expertise, but without citing a third party source, I have no idea whether this article represents your own point of view, or worse still that this is a hoax. If you can provide some third party reference (ideally to a book, or an academic or trade journal), this would avoid future proposals for deletion being made. --Gavin Collins 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A matter of formatting
Hi, I am glad that you have been helping with the formatting in places such as the chernobyl accident article but I have a question about one set of changes which you have been making.

I have noticed that you have altered the way that some isotopes are displayed. You seem to favour the older style of Cobalt-60 over the more modern 60Co. I would be interested to know if the wikipedia guide to style has any advice on how to write out an isotope. I think that the more modern method is more clear and it requires less space on paper/screen.Cadmium

Hi, again. Thanks for your thoughts. Regarding the requirements for semi-protection, how bad does vandalism have to be before "semi-protection" is considered. I think that some articles can adversly affect the image of wikipedia if they aquire rude junk, my reasoning is that if an outsider goes to look at the article connected with a major event such as chernobyl, berlin wall or the second world war and finds nonsense or rude muck then their view of the whole of wikipedia will be lowered. I also hold the view that the average vandal wants his work to be noticed by as many people as possible so he is more likely to edit the paris hilton page than the page devoted to zinc as it is likely that more people will want to read about Ms Hilton.

You are one of the administrators so I imagine that you know more about the rules and standards which are applied by the administrators as a whole, I think that it is important for the administrators to all follow a set of compatable paths. I think it would be unreasonable for all administrators to simply apply a set of rules imposed from on high without using their brains.... But at the same time I think that all of the administrators should apply the same general standards to avoid a situation where different factions of administrators appear who might start wheel warring. I imagine that being an administrator is a bit of a burden.Cadmium

Paul Driessen (lobbyist)
Lobbyist seems to have negative connotations and not take up the breadth of his career. Can the title of the article be changed to "Paul Driessen (environmentalist)"? That would encompass the writings on the environment plus the lobbying on behalf of non-profits and for-profits regarding environmental issues. If not, is there a possible alternative?

Inquiry
You indicate that your photo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohave_Generating_Station_1.jpg is available for republication. I would like to use it in a book to illustrate the relationship of the Clean Air Act to older coal-fired power plants. I realize that other issues were involved in the Mojave closure too and will mention those but the regulatory problem certainly played a part in the decision to close. I need to provide a credit line for the photo (e.g., photo courtesy of *****) and my publisher will probably want a formal release to use the photo. How can I contact you to send a release form?

Graybeardcornell

List of Esoteric Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum
I created this page and I understand why you deleted it. You mentioned "have no objection to the list being moved to the Wikipedia namespace" ...what is the namespace, and was it moved there? Also, is there anyway to retrieve the info I put on the page? Just for my own records? Thanks - ShadowyCabal 05:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Manu Kumaran
am curious to know why the article on Manu Kumaran was deleted? -- 81.159.222.119

Compaction
Hello. Members of WikiProject Civil engineering were reviewing articles related to compaction and settlement. I noticed you created the article Compaction and it is being suggested that the page be changed to a disambiguation page. If you'd care to chime in, we'd appreciate it. Thanks Zue Jay (talk)  18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Navy category changes
Hi Kjkolb! Please don't replace country categories, like Category:Submarines of the United States, with navy categories, like Category:United States Navy submarines. WikiProject Ships prefers to categorize by country, because it makes the category structure clearer when a browser may not know the navy name. I know it's obvious for the USN, but for consistency WP:SHIPS categorizes all ships by country. TomTheHand 19:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Geobox 2
Hello, this message is sent to you because you've shown some interest in the Geobox templates in past. There is now a new version (aka Geobox 2) which supersedes all older Geoboxes (aka Geobox 1). The major difference is there are no feature specific templates (Settlement, River, Mountain range etc.) but just one master template which can handle all type of data. There are a couple of new features and many new fields making the template much more versatile so now it can be used for virtually any geography related feature without the need to create a specific template.

The switch to Geoboxes 2.0 is highly recommended as the new template has a much more effective code, which renders faster than the old one (with much smaller pre-expand size, it can be one third to one fourth of the pre-expand size of Geoboxes 1). To convert aa page from Geobox 1 to Geobox 2, there are two ways:
 * By changing the template header: {{Geobox Settlement  becomes  {{Geobox|Settlement  Although some field names have been changed in order to be unified, the old names are accepted too. For any settlement Geobox use  {{Geobox|Settlement  and set the settlement type (city, borough, town, village) in category field. Calling e.g.  {{Geobox|City  will work as well but it's not the recommended way (from technical reasons).
 * By a semi-automated tool which reorders the field names in the Geobox 2 style and also renames the few changed field names.

There are several unresolved issues at the Geobox talk page, please add your comments and of course any other ideas you might come with as well as bug reports. – Caroig (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Primarysources
I provided a somewhat late reply here. — aldebaer⁠ 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I need your advice, please
Kjkolb, I need your advice as an administrator on the following:


 * Mlrusch very recently created a new article, Air heater.


 * On October 16 2007, Mlrusch posted a request on User Talk:Samw asking Samw for advice on how to improve his new article. Samw subsequently on October 17 posted a Merger tag on the Air heater article proposing that it be merged into the already existing Air preheater article and designated that it be discussed on the Talk:Air preheater page.


 * On October 17, Mlrusch posted a request on my User Talk:Mbeychok page asking my advice on how to improve his new article. I responded on my talk page by telling him that the Air preheater article already existed and I saw no reason why another article on the same subject was needed. I suggested that he consider merging his new article into the existing Air preheater article. I also transferred his posting and my response to his User Talk:Mlrusch talk page as well as to Talk:Air heater page of his article.


 * On October 17, Mlrusch also posted a request on User Talk:Claush66 asking Claush66 for advice on how to improve his article. Claush66 responded and told him that he favored merging the new Air heater article into the Air preheater article. Claush66 then posted a comment on the page that had been designated for discussion of the proposed merger, Talk:Air preheater, stating that he favored the proposed merger.


 * On October 18, I also posted my agreement with the proposed merger on the designated Talk:Air preheater page.

I think it was quite commendable that the new user Mlrusch (a student at Iowa State University) asked for advice from Samw, Claush66 and myself. However, when all three of us then advised him to merge his article into the existing Air preheater article, he has not responded anywhere to the merger proposal and continues to work on his article. How would you suggest he be persuaded to at least respond to the proposed merger? Regards and thanking you in advance, - mbeychok 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Smith (UFC Fighter) Article deletion
I noticed for a little while you put up the wiki warning stating the article is pending deletion with the reason being just because he was in the UFC doesn't mean there has to be an article on him.

If UFC/MMA fighting isn't your strongest department I would suggest you please refrain from using your itching article delete finger. Because Patrick Smith is one of the pioneers from the sport, he fought in the 1st 4 UFC's, almost winning 3 of them, losing to Royce Gracie. Also, he arguably one the 1st American MMA fighters, he starting incorporating all different styles while everyone was still using single styles.

If anything, all other early UFC participants require deletion before this guy does.

I created the article hoping people would contribute, because anyone who knows ufc knows who Patrick Smith is. I would like to expand this article but I am not good and writing the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdynas (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked user?
Ten days ago you stated that user:74.62.87.26 had been blocked for one year, but the user vandalized twice today and once yesterday. Is the user blocked? Bubba73 (talk), 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't check the block log earlier, and I see that you unblocked. The user has been blocked for 3 months now.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo request
I saw your name at Wikipedians/Photographers. For spite house, please photograph the Virginia City Spite House. I believe that it is located on either C Street or D Street in Virginia City. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

California photo requests now by County
I just spent the past few days moving all the California photo requests into County categories to make it easier for photographers to locate requests in the locations where they take photos. Please consider monitoring and adding your name to the list at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Santa Cruz County, California and other Centeral Coast counties. GregManninLB (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wind energy
Dear Kjkolb - I see you are a civil engineer - can you advise on

a) the construction rates of the Sacremento Deltas - how many Chinese for how many years?

Seemed to take a long time?

b) what is the typical cross section of a levee?

I want this for comparison purposes to see how quickly we could build the vast numbers of wind turbines we would need.

The total area is around 1,100 square miles, around 70 reclaimed islands and tracts, surrounded by 1,100 miles of levees surrounded by 700 miles of waterways. The delta was originally marshland; reclamation was made by the building of levees, begun by Chinese laborers in 1850s, finished by 1920.

Thanks, Engineman


 * As I told Engineman on his talk page, I am not a civil engineer. -- Kjkolb (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times Building‎
Thanks for the advice and no worries about the late response. Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all. Hopefully I'll find some time in the future to start the page on the old New York Times building. I hope you're feeling better. Ando228 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Induction Heater
Hi, I am looking to create an article on an Induction Heater. Currently this is represented as a link redirect to the article Induction Heating. The principles of an Induction Heater can be represented as a stand alone page offering detail on MF and RF Induction Heaters with internal links as appropriate. I did not want to create this without discussing with you as you created the initial redirect back in October 2006. The existing Induction Heating article is predominantly applications of based. Heatingcity (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Protocol for merging articles?
Greetings. I noticed you advised someone to not move articles by copy-pasting, noting that so doing split the page history. I was wondering (if you know this) what is the proper procedure for merging an article for which consensus on AfD was, to delete it and merge? I am concerned because I didn't make a copy of the original article to be merged; when I arrived at the AfD, the AfD was complete and the article was gone. Your post indicated that material can be recovered? But it sounded like perhaps a time consuming process. If you don't know, perhaps you could direct me to a place/person where I could find out? Thanks for your attention. Anarchangel (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ornamental stone
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ornamental stone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Fails N, no sources, WP:DICDEF, etc.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Firestorm (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the article because it did not have sources, even after years, and it was close to a dictionary definition, if not a dictionary definition. Also, no one had made any significant changes or improvements. Since I was the sole author for practical purposes, I did not think we had to wait another day or two before deleting. However, I think that there may be potential for a future article. Unfortunately, it is not a topic that is easy to find sources for, on or offline, so I do not have the time to do it myself, at the moment. Even if a new article was not much longer than the old one, as long as it had sources, I would be in favor of keeping it to have the information out there, as it appears there are no other sources for the information, even dictionaries, coincidentally. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology
Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) kilbad (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Deep integration
The concern I have with an independent article is that the term "deep integration" is a political pejorative, not a neutral terminology. It's a term that's used only by opponents of the proposals, specifically to allege that any given proposal is a stalking horse toward total elimination of the border regardless of whether that's a stated intention of the project in question or not — you'll never hear proponents of such a project refer to their own goals as "deep integration". As such, it's extremely difficult to actually write a neutral and reliably sourced article about it as an independent topic, because it's an inherently non-neutral and weakly sourced term. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Waterbodies
Never mind, I'm an idiot. Forgot to check the page history first -- I've restored the article to the redirect you created. Now I'm off to slap myself with a fishy.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FFP (request to undo move)
Fresh Frozen Plasma is a proper noun, not a description. It refers to a very specific product with an established technical definition. The move you made is akin to moving "United Kingdom" to "United kingdom". The kingdom is in fact united, but it is the United Kingdom, not simply a united kingdom, the same way Fresh Frozen Plasma is not simply plasma which happens to be frozen while fresh. An alternative title would be Fresh-frozen plasma, which is the British usage. I don't suppose it matters a whole heck of a lot, no one is likely to be confused, but the uncapitalized version is technically incorrect. SDY (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Extraction (military)


The article Extraction (military) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * per WP:NOTDICT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Source of Extraction (military)
Hi; My name is Chris Mar, I am an American Special Tactical Chief Instructor. I am currently in the Asia/PAC region for multinational specialized task teams focusing on terror interdiction serving now for over 20 years. Around 5 years ago I wrote Wikipedia article Tactical Combat which was widely quoted and used by various knowledge websites. The article was moved to wikisources and finally to wikibooks. Within the Book Tactical Combat there is a section from which the article Extraction is taken from word for word, and therefore the article Extraction is written by me and is part of Tactical Combat (wikibooks). If you look at my contributions you can date back to the inception of the Book Tactical Combat. For your convenience it is located at http://en.wiklibooks.org/wiki/Tactical_Combat. I do welcome its free use with attribution and hope you will do so accordingly. I brought this up to an administrator several months ago, but no appropriate action has been taken, so I am now contacting you and appreciate your consideration. chrismarChrismar (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Chrismar. Thank you for contacting me. The article "extraction (military)" was not written, or in this case, copied, by me. I simply moved the text from the disambiguation page, "extraction", because the description was much too long for a disambiguation page. It appears that you added the content in question to the "extraction" disambiguation page in two edits on January 4, 2005. I wish that I had mentioned which disambiguation page the content came from to make things clearer. It is Wikipedia practice to leave the attribution of content in the history of the page it originated in. If someone wants to know who wrote something, they must follow the trail in the edit history of each article. I do not know how we would go about it otherwise. It would be a particular problem if the content was written or modified by many different people, as is the case with many article splits.


 * If you would like to have the article deleted, you have two options. First, if the article has remained in essentially the same condition as when you wrote it, you could try asking for an author-requested deletion. See Criteria for speedy deletion for instructions on how to do this. If the first method does not work or is not appropriate, the article must be taken through the formal deletion process at Articles for deletion. However, this may not be successful, as a consensus for deleting the article must be reached.


 * As for adding attribution to the article, that is limited to the edit history unless it is a cite from a book, newspaper, website or some other reliable source. Attribution is not given in the article itself when the content is written by a contributor. However, I do not know if cites are used when the information is from a wikibook. There are several locations where you can ask this question. They can be accessed through the Help:Contents page. I suggest choosing one of the "village pump" pages. Your best bets are probably the "policy" and "miscellaneous" pages. If you do not get a satisfactory answer on one, you could try asking on the other. If you need additional assistance, feel free to contact me. However, my time on Wikipedia is currently sporadic, and it could take a very long time for me to get back to you. -- Kjkolb (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Information annealing
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Information annealing. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Information annealing. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)